Print

Print


Can't get anything right this AM.  I meant several thousand Hz, not kHz.  I
wish we could just convert all of this to note names--life would be much
simpler!   If we could talk about "My stereo gets up to quadruple High C
and yours only to the G below that," it would all be a lot more meaningful
to most people.  Discussion of frequency in Hz can definitely lead to a lot
of techo-babble, but there we are.

Best, John


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:07 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Sorry.  Need more coffee here.   That cloud of quantization noise is not
> above 96 kHz, because that is where a recording sampled at 192 cuts off.  I
> meant between 48 kHz (where a recording sampled at 96 kHz cuts off) and 96
> kHz.
>
> You have to keep in mind that these large numbers way up there are really
> small differences in pitch, as the numbers double per octave.  Several
> thousand kHz of frequency way up there is a very small pitch spread, where
> in the lower end of the spectrum, several Hz is a large pitch spread.
>
> Best, John
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:59 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I am just reporting what you see in a .WAV file (in spectral view), since
>> you can't directly hear it.  Noise does not look at all like music most of
>> the time.  What you see extending up above 22 kHz in the spectral view of a
>> hi-def .WAV file is the extension of certain tones that have a lot of upper
>> frequency content right up into the stratosphere.  I looks just like music
>> looks, not random noise.  Could it be "ringing" set off by that note?
>>  Perhaps.  But I would expect that kind of corruption of particular notes
>> to have some kind of audible effect in the range I can hear, or to be
>> visible as in increase in energy at upper levels, which would not happen
>> with musical overtones (not what you see).  All I can say I how it looks.
>>  Many LPs do appear to have content up there above 22 kHz, and good
>> cartridges can capture that.  What happens in the rest of an audio system
>> chain is up for grabs.
>>
>> Since I started doing restoration work at 96/24, I have noticed some
>> things.  I can also do it at 192 sampling rate, but when you do that you
>> get a .WAV file having a very visible layer of quantization noise (an upper
>> thick cloud of noise blanketing the top of the "picture") above 96 kHz.
>>  It's not audible, but why put the equipment and the media thru all the
>> trouble to produce/reproduce that, when (because it is noise) it cannot
>> possibly add anything to the musical signal?  At 96/24, all of this noise
>> is eliminated, and the audio signal at 96/24 is audibly indistinguishable,
>> to me, from the same signal recorded at 192.  At that point, whatever
>> benefit might be gained by using 192 has become insignificant in the real
>> world--i.e., not audible, and as Tom points out, possibly damaging to
>> equipment.  But that is not true at all for the comparison between 44/16
>> and 96/24, which is very much audible.
>>
>> I think a lot of early CD's had stinky upper frequency sound because of
>> phasing errors caused by the way upper frequencies above 22 kHz were
>> filtered out, causing "side effects" in the audible signal.  Not to
>> mention, human beings were doing the audio work, and not everyone really
>> knows what they are doing, or cares, then and now.  I don't think any of
>> the bad rap that early CD's got were the fault of the medium itself.  But I
>> agree that many of the earliest CD releases do not sound right, having a
>> "hard," unnatural treble.  I think that situation improved drastically as
>> time wore on, and generally a CD issue would sound better than a prior LP
>> issue, because (1) we got rid of the groove noise, and (2) the CD's were
>> often the result of a return to the master tape.  But these days, I don't
>> assume anything.  I listen to a lot of CD transfers that do not sound as
>> good as the materials they were created from.  That's the human factor at
>> work again, not to mention variations in equipment used, as pointed out by
>> others.
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Durenberger <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> One refers to Rupert Neve's thoughts on why coherent super-audible
>>> response is useful if not necessary.
>>>
>>> Someone else on the list may know where his paper was delivered...I have
>>> the audio of his remarks for anyone interested.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark Durenberger, CPBE
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Gray, Mike
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:03 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only
>>> Worthwhile Way to Own Music"
>>>
>>>
>>> Seconding Tom's comments - what exactly *is* that energy above 20kHz?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>>
>